Intel HD Graphics 630 versus AMD Radeon R9 M375
Comparaison des cartes vidéo Intel HD Graphics 630 and AMD Radeon R9 M375 pour tous les caractéristiques connus dans les catégories suivants: Essentiel, Infos techniques, Sorties et ports de vidéo, Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences, Soutien API, Mémoire, Technologies. Analyse du performance de référence des cartes vidéo: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Différences
Raisons pour considerer le Intel HD Graphics 630
- La carte vidéo est plus nouvelle: date de sortie 1 ans 3 mois plus tard
- Environ 13% plus de la vitesse augmenté: 1150 MHz versus 1015 MHz
- Un nouveau processus de fabrication soutient une carte vidéo plus forte, mais moins chaude: 14 nm versus 28 nm
- 16x plus de taille maximale de mémoire : 64 GB versus 4 GB
- Environ 15% meilleur performance en PassMark - G3D Mark: 1111 versus 970
- Environ 65% meilleur performance en PassMark - G2D Mark: 268 versus 162
- Environ 15% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 312.246 versus 272.547
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1945 versus 1850
- Environ 58% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3344 versus 2112
- Environ 5% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1945 versus 1850
- Environ 58% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3344 versus 2112
Caractéristiques | |
Date de sortie | 30 August 2016 versus 5 May 2015 |
Vitesse augmenté | 1150 MHz versus 1015 MHz |
Processus de fabrication | 14 nm versus 28 nm |
Taille de mémore maximale | 64 GB versus 4 GB |
Référence | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1111 versus 970 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 268 versus 162 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 312.246 versus 272.547 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1945 versus 1850 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3344 versus 2112 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1945 versus 1850 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3344 versus 2112 |
Raisons pour considerer le AMD Radeon R9 M375
- 2.9x plus de vitesse du noyau: 1000 MHz versus 350 MHz
- Environ 47% taux plus haut de remplissage de la texture: 40.6 GTexel / s versus 27.6 GTexel / s
- 26.7x plus de pipelines: 640 versus 24
- 2.9x de meilleur performance á point flottant: 1,299 gflops versus 441.6 gflops
- 2.2x meilleur performance en Geekbench - OpenCL: 10130 versus 4580
- Environ 4% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 29.048 versus 27.948
- Environ 13% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 2.024 versus 1.795
- Environ 76% meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 35.994 versus 20.404
- 4.4x meilleur performance en CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 142.872 versus 32.567
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 2227 versus 1859
- Environ 20% meilleur performance en GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 2227 versus 1859
Caractéristiques | |
Vitesse du noyau | 1000 MHz versus 350 MHz |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 40.6 GTexel / s versus 27.6 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 640 versus 24 |
Performance á point flottant | 1,299 gflops versus 441.6 gflops |
Référence | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 10130 versus 4580 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 29.048 versus 27.948 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.024 versus 1.795 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 35.994 versus 20.404 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 142.872 versus 32.567 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2227 versus 1859 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2227 versus 1859 |
Comparer les références
GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 630
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 M375
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) |
|
|
||||
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Nom | Intel HD Graphics 630 | AMD Radeon R9 M375 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1111 | 970 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 268 | 162 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 4580 | 10130 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 27.948 | 29.048 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 312.246 | 272.547 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.795 | 2.024 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 20.404 | 35.994 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 32.567 | 142.872 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1859 | 2227 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1945 | 1850 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3344 | 2112 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1859 | 2227 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1945 | 1850 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3344 | 2112 |
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 388 |
Comparer les caractéristiques
Intel HD Graphics 630 | AMD Radeon R9 M375 | |
---|---|---|
Essentiel |
||
Architecture | Generation 9.5 | GCN 1.0 |
Nom de code | Kaby Lake GT2 | Tropo |
Date de sortie | 30 August 2016 | 5 May 2015 |
Position dans l’évaluation de la performance | 1242 | 1244 |
Genre | Desktop | Desktop |
Conception | AMD Radeon R9 300 Series | |
Infos techniques |
||
Vitesse augmenté | 1150 MHz | 1015 MHz |
Vitesse du noyau | 350 MHz | 1000 MHz |
Performance á point flottant | 441.6 gflops | 1,299 gflops |
Processus de fabrication | 14 nm | 28 nm |
Pipelines | 24 | 640 |
Taux de remplissage de la texture | 27.6 GTexel / s | 40.6 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | |
Compte de transistor | 189 million | 1,500 million |
Unités de Compute | 10 | |
Sorties et ports de vidéo |
||
Connecteurs d’écran | No outputs | No outputs |
Eyefinity | ||
Compatibilité, dimensions et exigences |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Soutien de bus | PCIe 3.0 | |
Taille du laptop | medium sized | |
Soutien API |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12 |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
Vulkan | ||
Mantle | ||
OpenCL | Not Listed | |
Mémoire |
||
RAM maximale | 64 GB | 4 GB |
Largeur du bus mémoire | 64 / 128 Bit | 128 bit |
Genre de mémoire | DDR3L / LPDDR3 / LPDDR4 | DDR3 |
Mémoire partagé | 1 | 0 |
Bande passante de la mémoire | 28.8 GB / s | |
Vitesse de mémoire | 1100 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
AMD Eyefinity | ||
AppAcceleration | ||
DualGraphics | ||
Enduro | ||
FreeSync | ||
HD3D | ||
PowerTune | ||
Graphiques changeables | ||
ZeroCore |